Under the Skin

UNDER THE SKIN - My Thoughts - which might have nothing to do with the film whatsoever!

I think I have a bit of a problem with too many people and critics (they are 2 separate entities) calling this film intelligent, classy and a work of cinematic art and so on and so forth. Yet one gets no clear cut answers from anyone as to why it is an intelligent, classy, art film. Anyone can throw around "vague" words to impress and justify that: " Hey! I must be pretty smart having understood Under The Skin, like, totally!" Personally, I'd like to know what the big dark secret is. Jonathan Glazer's films ( 3 to be exact ) always present a fairly enigmatic situation wherein lies a fairly simple answer or solution. In "Under The Skin" the explanation is perhaps nothing more than this creepy view of our universe which all comes to us through the alien eyes of this rapturous creature, a female, one is to presume, a female who generally is not too fond of speaking. Why is she even here?

I believe, more than anything else, that we perhaps find out a little too much about ourselves especially by the conclusion... and it is terrifying.

It's not any more puzzling than that. But this is my position which does not mean it is the correct or the only position one can take in regards to this haunting film. YOU and you alone have to figure out what the film is saying to you directly. Don't have others try to explain what is often DELIBERATELY IMPENETRABLE. Under the Skin can be categorized as several type films. It is part sci-fi, no question; the horror comes into play since we feel haunted or better there is a haunting line running through the entire film. No question in my mind it's beyond a thriller. I felt it in my bones. That's already quite a lot from one film!

Now does all this a good movie make? Again, you must decide for yourself. Simply saying you liked it or did not like it is saying nothing at all.

Under The Skin is a "digital" film which I personally don't happen to like. I prefer old fashion movies shot on real film. They appeal more to my senses; never particularly pleased with a grainy look. Secondly, I hated the film score yet I will admit that it was appropriate for this particular movie. Is the movie puzzling? It is if you let it become puzzling.

It's not really complicated nor is it outrightly simple. Look at the film as a type of road film for surely it is a road film even on the simplest level.

Check out our alien when in an urban landscape and then note the difference when she travels to more rural areas. The mood of the film plays out as very dark, gloomy even gothic at times. And what does the director do to reinforce this. The film itself is shot quite darkly, yet it is often overcast and there are huge scenes with much rain which in itself is a disturbing factor. I can't get into specifics yet everyone who has seen the film will attest that much is of an unsettling nature. Everything appears grave and stern as to provoke and upset. That's what Glazer wanted. He wasn't going to hand you the film on a silver platter. See the film again and take one step at a time. Certain films, MEMENTO comes to mind, should be seen more than once.

Whether to put 'Under The Skin' on my 2014 best or worst list is the puzzler! No question the movie does have something to say; Glazer tries hard enough to make his few points in what appears to be a student shot movie. Perhaps I'm rather disappointed that the director had so little to say. It's all well and good that a film be instructive and entertaining, but holding my attention for a full length feature of almost two hours is way beyond the call of duty. I would call this an experiment that failed, perhaps not by much, but that's irrelevant! As far as I'm concerned the film has failed. Others will undoubtedly view it as a gem! So be it!